3 ms·

The worlds poorest use far less energy than the worlds wealthiest. If we want a world where the worlds poorest can rise, energy policy needs to be softer on the

The worlds poorest use far less energy than the worlds wealthiest. If we want a world where the worlds poorest can rise, energy policy needs to be softer on the poor, and the richest will have to pay more of the cost. The rich countries rose to the top on the back of historically cheap energy, to some extent. "The average US citizen still consumes more than ten times the energy of the average Indian, 4-5 times that of a Brazilian, and three times more than China" https://ourworldindata.org/energy-access#per-capita-energy-consumption-varies-more-than-10-fold-across-the-world https://ourworldindata.org/energy-access#per-capita-energy-c...

Dma54rhs 5y ago
Of course individually they consume less, when talking about the mass and big numbers, ultra wealthy are a statistical anomaly.
- rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
  Most of the poor energy footprint is not optional: commuting (most can't live in expensive districts), heating a single small apartment, basic food, buy a few leisure things. Almost all the wealthy footprint is discretionary: air travel, luxury purchase, package holidays... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8 Your "statistical anomaly" is not anecdotal, it's the very symbol of a broken system that was designed not to care. In this situation, I cannot expect the non-wealthy to make big efforts to reduce their consumption while the ultra rich continues to casually destroy the environment. We're letting the rich take almost all the profit but we ask the poor to work harder only because they're more numerous. This can only end with violence or a catastrophe, IMHO.
  - Dma54rhs 5y ago
    Right, but then what are options? Everything hits the poor I agree but if you don't want to then we will just let the global warming to run rampant and watch?
- elevaet 5y ago
  Ultra wealthy aside, this is about comparing the world's wealthiest economies to the world's poorest. There's a 10:1 ratio of energy usage in USA vs India for example (per capita).
mint2 5y ago
You know what will impact the poor a lot more than it will impact rich people? In the form of crop failures, desertification, water scarcity, land degradation etc…? Climate change.

Dma54rhs 5y ago

Of course individually they consume less, when talking about the mass and big numbers, ultra wealthy are a statistical anomaly.

rcMgD2BwE72F 5y ago
Most of the poor energy footprint is not optional: commuting (most can't live in expensive districts), heating a single small apartment, basic food, buy a few leisure things. Almost all the wealthy footprint is discretionary: air travel, luxury purchase, package holidays... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-020-0579-8 Your "statistical anomaly" is not anecdotal, it's the very symbol of a broken system that was designed not to care. In this situation, I cannot expect the non-wealthy to make big efforts to reduce their consumption while the ultra rich continues to casually destroy the environment. We're letting the rich take almost all the profit but we ask the poor to work harder only because they're more numerous. This can only end with violence or a catastrophe, IMHO.
- Dma54rhs 5y ago
  Right, but then what are options? Everything hits the poor I agree but if you don't want to then we will just let the global warming to run rampant and watch?
elevaet 5y ago
Ultra wealthy aside, this is about comparing the world's wealthiest economies to the world's poorest. There's a 10:1 ratio of energy usage in USA vs India for example (per capita).

mint2 5y ago

You know what will impact the poor a lot more than it will impact rich people? In the form of crop failures, desertification, water scarcity, land degradation etc…? Climate change.